The Political Economy of the Learning Crisis in Indonesia by Andrew Rosser, Phil King, and Danang Widoyoko Paper presented at RISE Annual Conference, University of Oxford, 22-24 September 2021. Draft only. Not for citation. June 2021 0 Abstract Indonesia has done much to improve access to education in recent decades but it has had little success in improving learning outcomes. This paper examines the political origins of this problem. It argues that Indonesia’s learning crisis has the reflected the political dominance during the New Order and post-New Order periods of predatory political, bureaucratic and corporate elites who have sought to use the country’s education system to accumulate resources, distribute patronage, mobilize political support, and exercise political control rather than produce skilled workers and critical and inquiring minds. Technocratic and progressive elements, who have supported a stronger focus on basic skills acquisition, have contested this orientation, with occasional success, but generally contestation has been settled in favour of predatory elites. The analysis accordingly suggests that efforts to improve learning outcomes in Indonesia are unlikely to produce significant results unless there is a fundamental reconfiguration of power relations between these elements. In the absence of such a shift, moves to increase funding levels, address human resource deficits, eliminate perverse incentive structures, and improve education management in accordance with technocratic templates of international best practice or progressive notions of equity and social justice—the sorts of measures that have been the focus of education reform efforts in Indonesia so far—are unlikely to produce the intended results. Keywords: learning, learning crisis, political settlements, Indonesia, education, schooling, political economy. 1 Executive Summary Purpose Indonesia is in the midst of a learning crisis. Although the country has significantly improved access to education in recent decades, it has done little to improve mastery of basic skills in literacy, numeracy and science, particularly among primary and secondary school students. A range of assessments suggest that students learn little at school. This paper examines the roots of this crisis, focusing on its political determinants. Conceptual Framework Much analysis of learning outcomes in low and middle income countries has emphasised the impact of factors such as inadequate funding levels, human resource deficits, perverse incentive structures, and poor management. By contrast, this paper employs an analytical framework grounded in ‘political settlements’ analysis. Political settlements are defined as ‘combination[s] of power and institutions that [are] mutually compatible and also sustainable in terms of economic and political viability’ (Khan 2010: 4). The political settlements approach entails identifying the actors who are involved in contesting education policy and its implementation in specific contexts and understanding how particular institutional arrangements serve or harm their interests. It also entails understanding the evolution of education policy and its implementation in terms of continuities and shifts in the balance of power between actors. Finally, it entails recognising that the extent of alignment between the interests of key actors may vary by reform measure: while all key actors may agree on the need for some measures, they may disagree on the need for others. Argument The paper argues that Indonesia’s learning crisis has stemmed from the continued political dominance of predatory political, bureaucratic and corporate elites for much of the period since that country declared independence in 1945—and specifically, throughout the New Order (1965-1998) and post-New Order (1998-present) periods. With such elites exercising the dominant influence over education policy and its implementation, the Indonesian government has given priority to training students to be loyal and obedient to the Indonesian nation, the Indonesian state and, to some extent, their religion rather than promoting acquisition of basic skills in maths, science and literacy. Technocratic and progressive elements, who have supported a stronger focus on basic skills acquisition in 2 line with neoliberal concerns to enhance labour productivity and promote economic growth (in the case of the former) and concerns to promote fulfilment of human rights and social justice (in the case of the latter), have contested this orientation, with occasional success especially during the post-New Order period. But generally such contestation has been settled in favour of predatory elites. Religious elites, some of whom have supported improved acquisition of basic skills in maths, science and literacy in line with Islamic traditions of learning have been coopted, harnessing them to predatory agendas and disabling them as a significant force for change. Parents and schoolchildren— the principal users/clients of education systems—have been at best a minor player in contests over education policy and its implementation in Indonesia. Empirical Focus The paper provides evidence to support this argument in two ways. The first is an historical account of the evolution of education policy and its implementation in Indonesia during the New Order and post-New Order periods and the way in which this has been shaped by the nature of the country’s reigning political settlement. It points to significant shifts in education policy and its implementation over time, notwithstanding the continuation of predatory rule. This is because the balance of power between the various elements above has shifted slightly as a result of regime change and economic crisis, opening up opportunities for change. The second is an in-depth analysis of the politics of policy-making in three key policy areas— national exams, the school curriculum, and teacher career trajectories. This traces how contestation between competing elements has had impact in areas of policy that have a particularly important bearing on learning outcomes. Implications The paper suggests that sustained improvements in learning will only occur if there is a fundamental reconfiguration of the political settlement that has characterised the country’s political economy. In the absence of such a shift, moves to increase funding levels, address human resource deficits, eliminate perverse incentive structures, and improve education management in accordance with technocratic templates of international best practice or progressive notions of equity and social justice—the sorts of measures that have been the focus of education reform efforts in Indonesia so far—are unlikely to produce the intended results. 3 However, this does not mean there is no hope for the future. The emergence of more inclusive policy-making spaces as a result of democratisation have created room for technocratic and progressive elements to exercise continued influence over education policy and its implementation. This is especially the case at the national level where these elements are strongest, although perhaps less so at the local level where predatory forces are in general vastly superior. At the same time, intensifying structural imperatives for Indonesia to improve its education system have emerged as the knowledge and technology sectors have become an increasingly important source of global economic growth. In this context, there may be some value in proponents of improved learning outcomes in Indonesia engaging more substantially with actors in the business community around issues to do with learning, particularly in so-called ‘creative industries’ such as information technology, software development, media, and film that are ar the forefront of the emergence of a knowledge/technology-based economy in Indonesia. By contrast, there is likely to be less value in seeking to promote improved learning through engagement with parents and schoolchildren given their weakness as a political actor. 4 Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 2 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 7 2 Conceptual Framework and Method ............................................................................................. 9 2.1 A Note on Data Sources ...................................................................................................... 13 3 The Competing Actors, Interests and Agendas ........................................................................... 14 3.1 Predatory Political, Bureaucratic and Corporate Elites ...................................................... 14 3.2 Religious/Islamic elites ....................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Technocratic Elements ........................................................................................................ 19 3.4 Progressive Elements .......................................................................................................... 22 4 The Evolution of Indonesia’s Education System Prior to the New Order .................................. 24 4.1 Fragmentation ..................................................................................................................... 25 4.2 Problems of Access and Quality ........................................................................................